There can be very good reasons to not obey a red light. In roads poorly designed for cyclists, going through a red light - with appropriate care - takes you out of a dangerous position, e.g. next to a large truck that is maybe planning to turn but isn't bothering to indicate. Of course hurtling through a red light without looking as Darwin award worthy, but I rarely see that in London.
As for waiting in line - in the UK it's perfectly legal to pass stationary traffic - even encouraged as there is sometimes a section dedicated to cyclists between the lights and where vehicles have to stop, for exactly this purpose. Again it reduces how often cyclists are caught in a dangerous road position.
Terrible advice - far more people get killed or injured by large vehicles turning into them from the side than from behind. Position yourself a good metre from the side of the road, forcing vehicles to actually overtake - if you ride in the kerb drivers will frequently try to squeeze past without moving out of their lane.
In PCL an example is given of a unit testing framework. Excluding comments, the code for this comes to around 30 lines, which I think is a little shorter than JUnit. This is not some toy utility, I have recently started working on a commercial lisp app and use this testing framework daily.
The GNU licenses are still mostly untested in court
in front of a judge.
This gets stated frequently, with the underlying suggestion that the GPL may be flawed, but remember that the vast majority of all licenses are untested in court. One might expect a legal challenge of the GPL, given its ubiquity, however I think there hasn't been one for two reasons.
1) It's well written, and unlikely to be defeated.
2) You have no right to use GPL'd software except under the terms of the GPL. If the GPL were to be successfully challenged, the result would not be the opening up of the software, rather the opposite, you would revert to having no rights to use the software at all.
IIRC Osaki said there were some data structures he did not know how to implement in a pure functional language, but I don't think he said which. Are there any obvious gaps in the TOC given by the parent?
MOD PARENT UP - NOT TROLL
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 1
The review is of a book that is supposed to be suitable, not just for C++ experts, but also novices. Whether you agree with it or not, it's not out of place to state the opinion that C++ may not be an appropriate tool for much commercial programming.
Note that the author, Jonathan Bartlett, is also the founder of the book's publisher, Bartlett publishing, whose only other computing publication seems to be the scheme manual R5RS (which IIRC can be downloaded for free in any format you care for). The rest of their books seem to be christian stuff.
My hunch is that this book is just some piece of crap that no mainstream publisher was interested in. I'd be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't for the dishonesty noted by the parent poster.
Terrorosts from Indian nations??? You have some fucked up idea of history. Talking of U.S. citizens having suffered terrorism at the hands of Indian nations is as sensible as listing terrorist acts performed by Jews in Germany before WWII. Another analogy would be terrorist acts by the French resistance against the occupiers. Have you noticed that there aren't many native americans these days, any idea why?
You couldn't describe Chomsky as a conspiracy theorist. Read any of his political works, they are thorough to the point of dullness, and make no claims without a high standard of evidendce. MUCH higher than you get in mainsteam press.
Where are you getting this from? He must be wrong just because you believe differently?...
Er.. no. Maths divides things into 'correct' and 'not correct' (unless you want to get into formalistic stuff). He is wrong, not because of opinion, but because there is a valid proof that he is wrong.
You pick door A. Then the host opens door C. You say: "always switch to door B." Ok, well how about this: assume, at the same time, there was a guy who had started out by picking door B. Should he switch to door A now? By your logic, he should. But that means that both A AND B are "better" choices than each other, at the same time . . . doesn't make sense, does it. By your logic that's how things are, and they don't make sense. Maybe your logic is wrong . ..
Yes, they are both better choices. That is not the same thing as saying they are both the correct choice, i.e. that the prize is behind each, just that based on the information available to the contestant, they have more chance of success if they switch door.
Try this analogy. The contestant picks a door, and is then told he can either open that door or all the other doors. Obviously you would choose to open the other two doors. The only difference between this and the standard Monty Hall problem is that in the standard case the host opens one of the other doors for you.
Are you sure you read the correct parent post to mine? He is wrong, and you are as well, although your statement disagrees with his.
Suppose there are doors A, B and C. Let's say you pick door A originally, and the host then shows door B to be empty. Given this information, there is a one in three chance that the prize lies behind door A, and a two in three chance the prize lies behind door C.
It's [recursion] exactly the same as any Java function call.
True, but treating recursive calls in the same way as any other function is inefficient. Other languages (e.g. lisp) treat tail-recursive calls differently, removing the need to clear up the stack when the function terminates.
The ability to hedge against disaster has kept America strong for many years. Farmers use futures to protect against natural disasters and other problems, locking in profits regardless of crop yields. Insurance companies use futures to protect against natural disasters and partially fund payouts for hurricanes and other catastrophes.
Yes, hedging is good, but that is not what this is.
This is the dumbest piece of crap to come out of some free marketeer's excuse for a brain.
Suppose such a market is created and widely used. Does it increase information about terrorist activity? Not unless people with inside knowledge, i.e. terrorists, use these markets to bet on their future activities. Seems a little unlikely.
Even if I have business that could be affected by such activity, it would be much more efficient to hedge with instruments more directly connected with my business, e.g. oil futures, or to take out specific insurance.
Given that the PAM only allows 1000 people a day to sign up, it'd take just under 3 years for even one million people to sign up. I don't think that the economic impact of the PAM will have any statistical significance.
You don't need that many. If this works like other futures exchanges, then most people will trade by putting an order in with a broker, who then executes that trade on your behalf.
1.... For Western interests, the Shah was a vastly superior choice for a ruling power than those who opposed him.
Those opposing him included the elected parliament.
3. The Shah was later removed from power, and because of his human rights record, the US would not aid him.
That is misleading, in that you are ignoring the hugh amounts of support given to the Shah by the U.S. throughout his reign despite his well publicised human rights record.
My spam has the same, I assume it's there to make work more difficult for filters, though I'm not sure how. In any case the randomness of these strings means they can't be filtered by a regex.
Slashdot Mirror
There can be very good reasons to not obey a red light. In roads poorly designed for cyclists, going through a red light - with appropriate care - takes you out of a dangerous position, e.g. next to a large truck that is maybe planning to turn but isn't bothering to indicate. Of course hurtling through a red light without looking as Darwin award worthy, but I rarely see that in London. As for waiting in line - in the UK it's perfectly legal to pass stationary traffic - even encouraged as there is sometimes a section dedicated to cyclists between the lights and where vehicles have to stop, for exactly this purpose. Again it reduces how often cyclists are caught in a dangerous road position.
Terrible advice - far more people get killed or injured by large vehicles turning into them from the side than from behind. Position yourself a good metre from the side of the road, forcing vehicles to actually overtake - if you ride in the kerb drivers will frequently try to squeeze past without moving out of their lane.
Why on earth was this modded down?
In PCL an example is given of a unit testing framework. Excluding comments, the code for this comes to around 30 lines, which I think is a little shorter than JUnit. This is not some toy utility, I have recently started working on a commercial lisp app and use this testing framework daily.
The term is "Could NOT care less"! Saying you "Could care less" implies that you do indeed care.
No, "Could care less" is normally used in an ironic sense, meaning the opposite of the literal interpretation, so it does mean you don't care.
This is covered, together with other common complaints about the supposed decline of english grammar, in 'The Language Instinct' by Stephen Pinker.
This gets stated frequently, with the underlying suggestion that the GPL may be flawed, but remember that the vast majority of all licenses are untested in court. One might expect a legal challenge of the GPL, given its ubiquity, however I think there hasn't been one for two reasons.
1) It's well written, and unlikely to be defeated.
2) You have no right to use GPL'd software except under the terms of the GPL. If the GPL were to be successfully challenged, the result would not be the opening up of the software, rather the opposite, you would revert to having no rights to use the software at all.
IIRC Osaki said there were some data structures he did not know how to implement in a pure functional language, but I don't think he said which. Are there any obvious gaps in the TOC given by the parent?
The review is of a book that is supposed to be suitable, not just for C++ experts, but also novices. Whether you agree with it or not, it's not out of place to state the opinion that C++ may not be an appropriate tool for much commercial programming.
Note that the author, Jonathan Bartlett, is also the founder of the book's publisher, Bartlett publishing, whose only other computing publication seems to be the scheme manual R5RS (which IIRC can be downloaded for free in any format you care for). The rest of their books seem to be christian stuff.
My hunch is that this book is just some piece of crap that no mainstream publisher was interested in. I'd be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't for the dishonesty noted by the parent poster.
Terrorosts from Indian nations??? You have some fucked up idea of history. Talking of U.S. citizens having suffered terrorism at the hands of Indian nations is as sensible as listing terrorist acts performed by Jews in Germany before WWII. Another analogy would be terrorist acts by the French resistance against the occupiers. Have you noticed that there aren't many native americans these days, any idea why?
Go away and read Bury my heart at wounded knee, or in fact, stop watching CNN and just read any book.
You couldn't describe Chomsky as a conspiracy theorist. Read any of his political works, they are thorough to the point of dullness, and make no claims without a high standard of evidendce. MUCH higher than you get in mainsteam press.
Surely that was John Logie Baird, or is this some revisionist version of history taught only in the UK.
Where are you getting this from? He must be wrong just because you believe differently?...
.
Er.. no. Maths divides things into 'correct' and 'not correct' (unless you want to get into formalistic stuff). He is wrong, not because of opinion, but because there is a valid proof that he is wrong.
You pick door A. Then the host opens door C. You say: "always switch to door B." Ok, well how about this: assume, at the same time, there was a guy who had started out by picking door B. Should he switch to door A now? By your logic, he should. But that means that both A AND B are "better" choices than each other, at the same time . . . doesn't make sense, does it. By your logic that's how things are, and they don't make sense. Maybe your logic is wrong . .
Yes, they are both better choices. That is not the same thing as saying they are both the correct choice, i.e. that the prize is behind each, just that based on the information available to the contestant, they have more chance of success if they switch door.
Try this analogy. The contestant picks a door, and is then told he can either open that door or all the other doors. Obviously you would choose to open the other two doors. The only difference between this and the standard Monty Hall problem is that in the standard case the host opens one of the other doors for you.
Are you sure you read the correct parent post to mine? He is wrong, and you are as well, although your statement disagrees with his.
Suppose there are doors A, B and C. Let's say you pick door A originally, and the host then shows door B to be empty. Given this information, there is a one in three chance that the prize lies behind door A, and a two in three chance the prize lies behind door C.
Google for 'Monty Hall' for proofs of this.
You're mistaken, although you are in good company, no less a mathematician than Paul Erdos made the same error.
Post your code if you still think switching makes no difference.
It's [recursion] exactly the same as any Java function call.
True, but treating recursive calls in the same way as any other function is inefficient. Other languages (e.g. lisp) treat tail-recursive calls differently, removing the need to clear up the stack when the function terminates.
The ability to hedge against disaster has kept America strong for many years. Farmers use futures to protect against natural disasters and other problems, locking in profits regardless of crop yields. Insurance companies use futures to protect against natural disasters and partially fund payouts for hurricanes and other catastrophes.
Yes, hedging is good, but that is not what this is. This is the dumbest piece of crap to come out of some free marketeer's excuse for a brain.
Suppose such a market is created and widely used. Does it increase information about terrorist activity? Not unless people with inside knowledge, i.e. terrorists, use these markets to bet on their future activities. Seems a little unlikely.
Even if I have business that could be affected by such activity, it would be much more efficient to hedge with instruments more directly connected with my business, e.g. oil futures, or to take out specific insurance.
Given that the PAM only allows 1000 people a day to sign up, it'd take just under 3 years for even one million people to sign up. I don't think that the economic impact of the PAM will have any statistical significance.
You don't need that many. If this works like other futures exchanges, then most people will trade by putting an order in with a broker, who then executes that trade on your behalf.
There more on this here
1. ... For Western interests, the Shah was a vastly superior choice for a ruling power than those who opposed him.
Those opposing him included the elected parliament.
3. The Shah was later removed from power, and because of his human rights record, the US would not aid him.
That is misleading, in that you are ignoring the hugh amounts of support given to the Shah by the U.S. throughout his reign despite his well publicised human rights record.
My spam has the same, I assume it's there to make work more difficult for filters, though I'm not sure how. In any case the randomness of these strings means they can't be filtered by a regex.
You killed my father. Prepare to die. Perfect
testend test
You would buy C books because C is an excellent language for very fast/low level programming. On the other hand C++ is a dog's breakfast.